 News | Forum | People | FAQ | Links | Search | Register |
Log in |
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_130415645&feature=iv&src_vid=Nnj5TfywMNk&v=49Vw1cYTOeQ
Thief + Tomb Raider + playing as a proper sneaky looking Gobbo?? Sold. Two Worlds II (2010) 8.5
Only a 65% aggregate, wtf?! This is a solid 8 minimum imo. Great RPG, awesome depth with the weapon upgrade combinations and spell making. Decent story and graphics. The main game was about 15 hours for me, but then add in the huge DLC and it's another 5-10 hours. Gotta get the velvet edition so you get both. Mass Effect 2 was certainly the best action RPG of 2010, but Two Worlds II was next, ahead of Awakenings, then Gothic 4, Alpha Protocol, and Venetica. I'm still to play New Vegas though so that might steal the #3 spot. Global Ops: Commando Libya (2011) 5.0 UE3 but really budget and pretty shit. The Cursed Crusade (2011) 4.5 Starts off fucking horribly with an insane amount of cutscenes, but most of the game is actually pretty decent. Sadly it goes on a few hours too long with the linear level never realy changing much and gets shit again by the end. Oh and it suddenly ends as if they ran out of money. No boss, no conclusion to the story. It just ends out of nowhere. I don't plan to review these on my site. I might play Risen1 soon. I was going to skip it because it sounds too difficult, but maybe I'll try it. I'll just have to grind hardout and play on easy. Anyone here like or dislike it?
Actually Angry Joe gives is a 3/10, and besides that it looks absolutely shit in the videos. Guess I'll skip it still.
Only a complete bellend would rate Risen 3/10. It's definitely a great game, look above in this thread to see what we wrote about it. Better than TW2 imo. When I first played it, it pretty much felt like a "Gothic II with better graphics" (although some aspects have devolved as well). I would give it at least 8/10. At the very least, you should give it a try for a couple of hours and decide then.
Yeah I saw you and Bal liked it. But then even if Angry Joe was wrong about it, the videos of gameplay show some pretty bad looking graphics. I need good graphics.
Didn't Angry Joe review the 360 version, which turned out to be an ugly looking, horrible and shoddy port?
iirc anyway, it's been a while. <Stirfrybler> finished wolfenstein
<Stirfrybler> not bad, quite stylish, quite good characters <Stirfrybler> difficulty level was all over the place <Stirfrybler> 1/3 almost empty, 1/3 spot on fun, 1/3 near impossible <Stirfrybler> also jumped from place to place so quick it kinda lost the sense of progression <cardo> wolf 3d yeah? good job
<Vigil> bler welcome to 20 years ago <Vigil> but glad you're catching up <cardo> 22 years ago! <cardo> time to play this now Stirfrybler - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mo4HXRtXknI <Asaki2> That's not Spear of Destiny. <Vigil> bler have you heard about this other FPS called Doom? <Vigil> it's like the spiritual sequel to Wolfenstein What's wrong with Fallout3? I thought it was a great game. Not perfect, but so much quantity and hours to waste. That was rare for a FPS in 2008 to be over 10 hours long.
By the way I just finished Call of Juarez: The Cartel. Really not as bad as is made out. I guess everyone was expecting an open world western, but they got a linear cop thriller based in modern mexico. I enjoyed the story and characters. Just normal shooter gameplay but the guns were a bit shit.
About 6.5/10, maybe 7 if I'm feeling generous. Oh and Battle: Los Angeles - 4.5/10. Could have been okay but this is a full game lasting, literally, 55 minutes. It's still $10 on steam! Have to agree on Fallout 3. I've put in well in excess of 200 hours on the Fallout series (Fallout 3 and New Vegas combined), and I'm looking getting the itch for another play through soon. Just wonderful games. SO much to explore and find. And so many different character paths...
Fallout 3 is an utter failure on every imaginable level. It has a completely shit storyline with almost no choice and consequence, an ugly and buggy engine (I can't believe they're still using it), almost none of the humour present in the earlier games (especially FO2), shit writing, abysmal gameplay and the fact that Van Buren got canned for this terrible game makes me really mad.
The worst offender has to be gameplay though. The fact that there is ZERO player skill involved in an FPS is a cardinal sin. Everything is determined with dice rolls and character skills. This does NOT work in an FPS. At all. The fact that I'm very good at aiming, aim for the head and yet won't even hit my target because of some shit skill not high enough is maddening (and it's worse if that backfires). And despite its good setting, writing and all New Vegas still has the same crap. VATS makes the game even slower and you almost have to use it every time if you even want to hit something. Now VATS was in FO1 and 2 but that isn't an issue in a isometric game, however in an FPS it's the absolute worst thing you could think of. Also RPGCodex recently made a Top 70 RPGs poll where members could allocate 25 points for any RPG they wanted. While New Vegas got pretty high in the poll (too high in my opinion even if it's a definite improvement over FO3 in every domain except gameplay and engine), Fallout 3 did not receive a SINGLE vote, not even to allocate 1 point.
http://www.rpgcodex.net/content.php?id=9453 Alpha Protocol ahead of Dragon Age: Origins and The Witcher 2 with Mass Effect 2 not even on the list? wtf. Don't agree with that poll.
|
|
| You must be logged in to post in this thread. |
|
| Website copyright © 2002-2025 John Fitzgibbons. All posts are copyright their respective authors. |